Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 1 of 12

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Valerie Boots

Marion County Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

Michael C. Borschel

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Hendricks,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 15, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1036

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable James Snyder, 

Master Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49G20-1703-F2-8485

Darden, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 2 of 12

Statement of the Case

[1] James Hendricks appeals from his convictions of one count of Level 2 felony 

dealing in a narcotic drug,

1

and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law 

enforcement.2 He also challenges his sentence. We affirm.

Issues

[2] Hendricks presents the following issues for our review:

I. Did the trial court commit reversible error by convicting 

Hendricks of dealing a narcotic drug when there was a 

challenge to the evidence supporting the element of 

possession?

II. Was Hendricks’ sentence inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender? 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Sometime prior to March of 2017, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police 

Department received information that narcotics were being sold out of a house 

located at 405 South McClure Street in Marion County, Indiana. Thereafter, 

several citizen complaints were made to IMPD about the activities at that same 

home. Officers with the narcotics division conducting surveillance at that 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1), -(e)(1) (2016).

2

Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a) (2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 3 of 12

location observed activity at the house that confirmed their suspicions of 

criminal activity there. 

[4] Next, officers with the narcotics division applied for and were granted a search 

warrant for the home in question. Relying on the assistance of the SWAT 

Team, a Flex Team (officers who can stop a vehicle if the target of an 

investigation leaves before the SWAT Team arrives), and other law 

enforcement officers, IMPD officers served the search warrant on the home 

sometime in the early afternoon of March 2, 2017.

[5] Before conducting the search, the house and the two occupants were secured. 

During the search officers found paraphernalia and narcotics, which included 

methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine in the house. The two occupants of the 

house were also interviewed. As a result, officers learned that an individual

would be arriving at the back door of the house “to make a delivery.” Tr. Vol. 

II, p. 65. After learning that information, the officers stationed their vehicles 

away from the home and conducted visual surveillance from nearby. Several 

officers, however, remained hidden inside the house. Detective Steven Spears, 

who was not in his uniform, waited inside for the expected individual to arrive 

at the back doorway of the house. Other officers, who were wearing clothing 

identifying themselves as law enforcement, waited and observed in the detached 

garage. 

[6] Around twenty minutes later, Hendricks arrived at the house in a black Lexus 

and parked the vehicle in the driveway. He exited his vehicle, went to the back 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 4 of 12

door of the house, and knocked. Detective Cooper observed that Hendricks 

had a calm demeanor as he approached–“like someone coming to visit a 

house.” Id. at 100. Detective Spears answered the knock at the door and 

invited him in. Upon seeing Detective Spears, Hendricks just looked surprised 

and almost immediately began running away from the back of the house. 

[7] Detective Spears quickly yelled, “Police, police, stop,” and pursued Hendricks. 

Id. at 67. Several officers in identifiable police outerwear, including Detectives 

Garland Cooper and John Wallace, who had been stationed in the garage, 

joined the pursuit and they, along with Detective Jake Tranchant, ordered

Hendricks to stop. Hendricks, however, continued to run away from the 

officers.

[8] Hendricks ran past his vehicle, which remained in the driveway. While 

running through the front yard of the house, Hendricks tripped over some 

decorative edging stones, and, according to Detective Cooper, did a “barrel 

roll” and fell down in the yard. Id. at 90. When Hendricks fell, Detective 

Cooper observed a plastic baggie containing a whitish substance fall out of the 

pocket of Hendricks’ hoodie. Hendricks jumped up and resumed running from 

law enforcement. Detective Spears was able to catch up to Hendricks and 

pushed him to the ground. Hendricks continued to resist arrest by crawling to 

the street, but he was handcuffed and taken into custody.

[9] Detective Tranchant recovered $240.00 from Hendricks’ right pocket of his 

pants. Detective Spears located a digital scale on the ground where Hendricks 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 5 of 12

fell and a plastic baggie containing suspected narcotics that had fallen out of 

Hendricks’ hoodie. At the spot where Hendricks fell for the second time before 

being apprehended, officers located a red air freshener can containing a baggie 

with suspected narcotics inside. None of these items were wet, although the 

grass around the items was wet from rain which had previously fallen. Officers 

subsequently testified that these items had not been there thirty minutes earlier 

when they arrived at the house. 

[10] The substances inside the baggies were later tested and found to be 24.0495 

grams of fentanyl and 11.5592 grams of fentanyl, respectively.

[11] The State charged Hendricks with one count of Level 2 felony dealing in a 

narcotic drug, one count of Level 4 felony possession of a narcotic drug, and 

one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. At the 

conclusion of Hendricks’ jury trial, he was found guilty as charged. For double 

jeopardy reasons, the trial court entered judgment of conviction on only one 

count of Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug and one count of Class A 

misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The trial court sentenced Hendricks to

concurrent terms of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction for the 

Level 2 felony, and three hundred sixty-five days for the Class A misdemeanor. 

Those sentences, however, were ordered to be served consecutive to a sentence 

entered in another case. Hendricks now appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 6 of 12

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[12] Hendricks’ sole challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is that the State did 

not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he possessed the fentanyl recovered 

by law enforcement and used to support his conviction of Level 2 felony dealing 

in a narcotic drug. Our standard of review, which follows, is well settled.

When an appeal raises a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we do 

not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, we 

respect a fact-finder’s exclusive province to weigh conflicting 

evidence. We consider only the probative evidence and the 

reasonable inferences that support the verdict. We will affirm if 

the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the 

evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018) (internal quotations and 

citations omitted).

[13] “It is therefore not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome’ every reasonable 

hypothesis of innocence.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007). 

“We will only reverse a conviction when reasonable persons would not be able 

to form inferences as to each material element of the offense.” Griffin v. State, 

945 N.E.2d 781, 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). The testimony of a single 

eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Hubbard v. State, 719 N.E.2d 

1219, 1120 (Ind. 1999). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 7 of 12

[14] To prove that Hendricks committed dealing in a narcotic drug as a Level 2 

felony, the State was required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that 

Hendricks possessed with the intent to deliver cocaine or a narcotic drug, pure 

or adulterated, classified in schedule I or II, and the amount of the drug was at 

least ten grams. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(2), -(e)(1). Fentanyl is a schedule II 

controlled substance. Ind. Code § 35-48-2-6(c) (2015). 

[15] During the trial, testimony from law enforcement officers revealed that an 

amount of fentanyl,3which previously had not been present near the street in 

the front yard of the address under surveillance, was recovered by law 

enforcement at the spot where Hendricks fell for the second time; and, another 

baggie, which Detective Cooper saw fall from Hendricks’ hoodie as he did a 

barrel roll near the front of the house, was admitted in evidence as State’s 

Exhibit 18. It contained a white substance which was identified and weighed as

24.0495 grams of fentanyl. 

[16] Alone, Detective Cooper’s testimony that he observed the baggie containing 

24.0495 grams of fentanyl fall from Hendricks’ hoodie was sufficient to sustain 

Hendricks’ conviction. See Hubbard, 719 N.E.2d at 1120. Further, digital scales 

were found in the same area. The baggie containing the fentanyl was dry 

outside even though officers testified about trying to avoid stepping into puddles 

of water from rainy weather during their chase.

 

3 This substance was identified and labeled as State’s Exhibit 19, containing 11.5592 grams of fentanyl.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 8 of 12

[17] In sum, the occupants of the drug house informed law enforcement officers that 

an individual would be arriving at the house to make a delivery. Hendricks

arrived at the house as indicated, but was startled by the presence of Detective 

Spears, an individual he did not know or expect to be there. After officers 

ordered Hendricks to stop, he continued running and a baggie of fentanyl was

observed falling out of his hooded sweatshirt as he tripped and did a barrel roll 

in the front yard. Digital scales were also found near that baggie. The baggie 

was dry outside although the grass was wet. At least one officer testified about 

trying to avoid stepping in puddles of water as they chased Hendricks. An 

additional amount of fentanyl was located near the spot where Hendricks fell 

the second time and was apprehended by police. Two hundred and forty 

dollars was recovered from the pocket of Hendricks’ pants. There is sufficient 

evidence that Hendricks possessed at least ten grams of fentanyl with the intent 

to deliver it to the low-level dealers in the house such that his conviction should 

be affirmed. 

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[18] Hendricks argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender. The sentencing range for a Level 2 

felony is a fixed term of imprisonment between ten and thirty years with the 

advisory sentence being seventeen and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4.5 

(2013). The sentencing range for a Class A misdemeanor is a fixed term of not 

more than one year of imprisonment. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2 (1977). Hendricks 

received concurrent sentences of three hundred sixty-five days for the Class A 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 9 of 12

misdemeanor conviction and twenty-five years for the Level 2 felony 

conviction. Those sentences were ordered to be served consecutive to a 

sentence imposed in another cause of action.

[19] Our Supreme Court has stated the following about our role in the appellate 

review of sentences.

Even where a trial court has not abused its discretion in 

sentencing, the Indiana Constitution authorizes independent 

appellate review and revision of a trial court’s sentencing 

decision. Appellate courts implement this authority through 

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that we may revise 

a sentence if after due consideration of the trial court’s decision 

we find the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.

Eckelbarger v. State, 51 N.E.3d 169, 170 (Ind. 2016) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). “The defendant bears the burden of persuading the Court

that [his] sentence is inappropriate.” Phipps, 90 N.E.3d at 1198. 

[20] Case law further instructs that “[s]entencing is principally a discretionary 

function in which the trial court’s judgment should receive considerable 

deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). “Such 

deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in 

a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, 

regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as substantial 

virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 

N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 10 of 12

[21] “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on 

our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the 

damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given 

case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. “The principal role of appellate review 

should be to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles 

for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, 

but not to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Id. at 1225. 

[22] In light of the nature of his offenses, we observe that Hendricks was on 

supervised release for a federal court conviction for felony possession of a 

weapon when he committed the instant offense–possession of thirty-six grams 

of fentanyl. Although the State was required only to show that Hendricks

possessed at least ten grams of fentanyl to sustain his conviction, the evidence 

established that he possessed three times that amount, an amount Detective 

Shaffer characterized as commonly attributable to a “mid-level dealer.” Tr.

Vol. II, p. 174. Hendricks appeared at the drug house to deliver a large quantity 

of drugs to those who could be characterized as low-level drug dealers and/or

drug addicts. Methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine were found in the house 

in addition to fentanyl. 

[23] Hendricks ran from police officers, even after being ordered to stop, until he 

was finally apprehended by Detective Spears. Digital scales were found in the 

front yard at the spot where Hendricks first fell. After his apprehension, 

Hendricks was found to be in possession of a large amount of cash–$240.00–a 

reasonable indicator of drug dealing. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 11 of 12

[24] Hendricks argues that he should be resentenced to the advisory sentence–three 

years–for a Level 5 felony, based on his self-serving admission that he only 

agreed to deliver .4 grams of fentanyl. Appellant’s Br. p. 15. We are not 

persuaded that his sentence is inappropriate on this ground.

[25] As for the character of the offender, we observe that Hendricks’ criminal record 

is a poor reflection on his character. Hendricks has six prior arrests, including 

one for murder, and two prior felony convictions. Hendricks was on supervised 

release for a felony conviction in his federal case when he committed the 

offenses related to this appeal. 

[26] Hendricks had a prior membership in a gang known as the Vice Lords and 

continues to associate with members of active gangs. Although Hendricks’ 

prior convictions involve acts of violence and crimes involving weapons, his 

current criminal offenses merely appear to be a change in direction of 

criminality in other areas. Hendricks’ past and present criminal history 

demonstrates a continued disregard for law and order in a civilized society. 

[27] Hendricks has been engaged in illegal drug use for almost two decades and has 

refused to take advantage of opportunities for treatment. He admitted he used 

heroin on the date of the instant offenses. Even though not all of those acts 

were reduced to a judgment, a trial court may consider evidence of prior crimes 

to support the finding that the defendant has a history of criminal activity. 

Bailey v. State, 763 N.E.2d 998, 1004 (Ind. 2002). Hendricks has failed to carry 

his burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate on this ground.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1036 | January 15, 2019 Page 12 of 12

Conclusion 

[28] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to 

support the jury’s verdict and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was 

not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender.

[29] Affirmed. 

Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.